From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 13 20:14:50 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2A416A41F for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:14:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from mh2.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69CC43D45 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:14:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from [192.168.42.25] ([192.168.42.25]) by mh2.centtech.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jADKEl7R037262 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:14:47 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <43779EB1.5070302@centtech.com> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:14:41 -0600 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051021 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org References: <200511131549.jADFn2s5056445@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <200511131549.jADFn2s5056445@lurza.secnetix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.82/1169/Fri Nov 11 15:28:05 2005 on mh2.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: UFS2 snapshots on large filesystems X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:14:50 -0000 Oliver Fromme wrote: > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > user wrote: > > > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Eric Anderson wrote: > > > > [fsck on large file systems taking a long time] > > > > > > Can you elaborate ? Namely, how long on the 2GB filesystems ? > > > > It depends very much on the file system parameters. In > > particular, it's well worth to lower the inode density > > (i.e. increase the -i number argument to newfs) if you > > can afford it, i.e. if you expect to have fewer large > > files on the file system (such as multimedia files). > > I just accidentally pulled the wrong power cord ... > So now I can give you first-hand numbers. :-} > > This is a 250 Gbyte data disk that has been newfs'ed > with -i 65536, so I get about 4 million inodes: > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused > /dev/ad0s1f 179,049 3,576,789 5% > > So I still have 95% of free inodes, even though the > filesystem is fairly good filled: > > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity > /dev/ad0s1f 237,652,238 188,173,074 30,466,986 86% > > fsck(8) took about 2 minutes, which is acceptable, I > think. Note that I always disable background fsck > (for me personally, it has more disadvantages than > advantages). > > This is what fsck(8) reported when the machin came > back up: > > /dev/ad0s1f: 179049 files, 94086537 used, 24739582 free > (26782 frags, 3089100 blocks, 0.0% fragmentation) 180k inodes seems like a pretty small amount to me. Here's some info from some of my filesystems: # df -i Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity iused ifree %iused Mounted on /dev/amrd0s1d 13065232 1109204 10910810 9% 663 1695079 0% /var /dev/label/vol1 1891668564 1494254268 246080812 86% 68883207 175586551 28% /vol1 /dev/label/vol2 1891959846 924337788 816265272 53% 59129223 185364087 24% /vol2 /dev/label/vol3 1892634994 1275336668 465887528 73% 31080812 213506706 13% /vol3 Even /var has over 1million. I think your tests are interesting, however not very telling of many real-world scenarios. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------